From: RDShatt
To: robert_alba@mad.uscourts.gov, christine_patch@mad.uscourts.gov
Sent: 5/17/2009 9:55:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Amicus curiae : NE Carpenters Health Fund v. FDI and McKesson
[Mr. Alba and Ms. Patch: I would like to transmit the below letter electronically to Judge Saris. I am not sure how much I care whether the same is in the case record. If you are not in a position to forward my email to Judge Saris but you can supply me with an email address for her, I will pleased to use that to send to her. Thank you. Robert Shattuck]
Transmitted electronically to court clerk (robert_alba@mad.uscourts.gov)
and docket clerk (christine_patch@mad.uscourts.gov)
May 17, 2009
The Honorable Patti B. Saris
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Boston, MA
Re: New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank Inc. and McKesson
Corp.
Amicus curiae objection to settlement
Dear Judge Saris,
To my knowledge I am not a member of the plaintiff class. As a citizen who is affected by class action lawsuits such as this one, I am writing this as an amicus curiae letter to you.
There are many critics and much criticism of class action lawsuits, and thousands of plaintiff class members , including myself, file objections in class actions about proposed settlements and attorney fees.
I am currently trying to advance two contentions which I think are deserving of more attention than they have heretofore received, and I wish to advance them to you. The two contentions have a connection to each other I believe.
First, I contend that class action litigation such as this case does not promote an objective of the law to lessen corporate wrongdoing, and such litigation is in fact counterproductive to that end and it undermines the fostering and inculcation of ethical business conduct. My argumentation to this effect is set out at length in this article of mine: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
Second, I contend that this litigation is very questionable in serving the social utility of "doing justice." The main reason it is questionable is that I believe insufficient attention is paid to the extent to which this litigation at bottom is only about making transfers of amounts by and among parties in interest who are not culpable of any wrongdoing. It is possible there has been wrongdoing by corporate officers and employees or other individuals, and as a result some innocent parties have received a benefit from the wrongdoing and other innocent parties have had a loss or cost imposed on them. Whether or not there has been such wrongdoing, the case against the corporation should be considered as an unjust enrichment case, and nothing more. The facts and circumstances of all the persons who have been unjustly enriched and at whose expense they have been unjustly enriched are likely highly variable and somewhat indeterminate, and it is likely there has not been adequate investigation, or opportunity for argument, as to persons who are contended to have been unjustly enriched, the particular facts about whether or not he was unjustly enriched or, if he was unjustly enriched, about whether more is being taken from him in the litigation than the amount by which he was unjustly enriched.
The reason I believe insufficient attention is paid to viewing the case as being nothing more than an unjust enrichment case is a certain blindness that has arisen in the law because the plaintiffs' lawyers get their riches by and large out of the pockets of parties in interest who are innocent of wrongdoing. In order to do that, they want to bang the drum of corporate wrongdoing and do not want any reasonable and thoughtful consideration of factors such as who the wrongdoing individuals are, how much those individuals benefited from their wrongdoing, how much they being called on or not called on to compensate harmed parties, and to what extent is it fair and just in the situation to have innocent parties in interest pay for an alleged loss.
Having stated the foregoing reason of the explanation for my second contention, I think you will readily discern its connection to my first contention.
I hope you will reflect on my two contentions. If you think they have merit and they persuade you that litigation such as this class action has less social utility and does less to serve the ends of justice than you previously thought, I hope you will signify that by reducing the amount of attorneys fees you would otherwise approve.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223(205) 967-5586
Showing posts with label J6. McKesson drug pricing class action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label J6. McKesson drug pricing class action. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Possible expert on McKesson employee psychology
From: RDShatt
To: kray@haas.berkeley.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:40:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: McKesson Corp. and employee psychology
Dear Professor Kray,
I doubt that you will reply to this, but I want to try anyway.
I have sent this email http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html to the directors of McKesson Corporation, which is based in San Francisco.
In the email and its links, I make various statements about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions. I make the statements as a layperson and based on common knowledge about human nature.
I am contacting you because you are in the Bay Area and because your academic specialities combine business administration and psychology.
I would be interested in whether you, based on your academic learning, agree or disagree with the statements that I make in my article about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions.
I know that it will take more time to respond to this inquiry than you will want to give, but I thought I would ask anyway.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
To: kray@haas.berkeley.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:40:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: McKesson Corp. and employee psychology
Dear Professor Kray,
I doubt that you will reply to this, but I want to try anyway.
I have sent this email http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html to the directors of McKesson Corporation, which is based in San Francisco.
In the email and its links, I make various statements about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions. I make the statements as a layperson and based on common knowledge about human nature.
I am contacting you because you are in the Bay Area and because your academic specialities combine business administration and psychology.
I would be interested in whether you, based on your academic learning, agree or disagree with the statements that I make in my article about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions.
I know that it will take more time to respond to this inquiry than you will want to give, but I thought I would ask anyway.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
May McKesson, as well as Xerox, Board be appreciative
From: RDShatt
To: Don.Liu@xerox.com
CC: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/16/2009 8:04:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Xerox securities lawsuit: request to contact independent directors
Dear Mr. Liu,
Hopefully the McKesson Corporation Board of Directors will be equally appreciative of my thoughts and comments. See http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 6/5/2008 4:03:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Don.Liu@xerox.com writes:
Dear Mr. Shattuck:
The Xerox Board of Directors has instructed me to respond to the concerns you expressed in your letter dated April 23, 2008.
I can assure you that our full Board of Directors reviewed the Carlson litigation and approved the settlement based on its determination that settling the case was in the best interest of both the Company and its shareholders. Moreover, without debating with you the equity of how and to whom the settlement proceeds should be distributed, because of the composition of the plaintiff class and the allegations made in the complaint, the settlement proceeds can be distributed only to those shareholders who purchased Xerox stock or bonds during the class period, as specified by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
On behalf of our Board of Directors, I want to express our appreciation for your thoughts and comments.
Sincerely,
Don H. Liu
Senior Vice President,General Counsel and Secretary
Xerox Corporation
45 Glover Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06856
To: Don.Liu@xerox.com
CC: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/16/2009 8:04:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Xerox securities lawsuit: request to contact independent directors
Dear Mr. Liu,
Hopefully the McKesson Corporation Board of Directors will be equally appreciative of my thoughts and comments. See http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 6/5/2008 4:03:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Don.Liu@xerox.com writes:
Dear Mr. Shattuck:
The Xerox Board of Directors has instructed me to respond to the concerns you expressed in your letter dated April 23, 2008.
I can assure you that our full Board of Directors reviewed the Carlson litigation and approved the settlement based on its determination that settling the case was in the best interest of both the Company and its shareholders. Moreover, without debating with you the equity of how and to whom the settlement proceeds should be distributed, because of the composition of the plaintiff class and the allegations made in the complaint, the settlement proceeds can be distributed only to those shareholders who purchased Xerox stock or bonds during the class period, as specified by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
On behalf of our Board of Directors, I want to express our appreciation for your thoughts and comments.
Sincerely,
Don H. Liu
Senior Vice President,General Counsel and Secretary
Xerox Corporation
45 Glover Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06856
McKesson and Identity Thesis
From: RDShatt
To: dienharj@seattleu.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:54:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Identity Thesis and legal system
Dear Professor Dienhart,
I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Separation Thesis: Perhaps Nine Lives are Enough: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.
In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.
It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.
I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx
Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:
With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.
McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?
Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?
I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article articulates an Identity Thesis and causes me to think that, in many situations, a number of alternative possible actions can be justified as ethical, and agreement may be hard to come by about a particular action in fact that has been or will be taken.
To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend. (This assumes that, in some situations, there can be agreement that a particular action that is in fact taken cannot be defended as being ethical and is wrong.)
What do you think?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: dienharj@seattleu.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:54:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Identity Thesis and legal system
Dear Professor Dienhart,
I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Separation Thesis: Perhaps Nine Lives are Enough: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.
In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.
It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.
I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx
Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:
Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most
commonpricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is
oftenused in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party
Payorswill reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that
someconsumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants,
McKessonCorporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank
("FDB"), apublisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by
FDB todetermine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many
drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any
wrongdoing.
With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.
McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?
Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?
I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article articulates an Identity Thesis and causes me to think that, in many situations, a number of alternative possible actions can be justified as ethical, and agreement may be hard to come by about a particular action in fact that has been or will be taken.
To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend. (This assumes that, in some situations, there can be agreement that a particular action that is in fact taken cannot be defended as being ethical and is wrong.)
What do you think?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
McKesson; scholars' separation thesis
From: RDShatt
To: harrisj@darden.virginia.edu, freemane@darden.virginia.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 6:17:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Another separation thesis?
Dear Professors Harris and Freeman,
I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Impossibility of the Separation Thesis: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.
In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.
It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.
I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx
Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:
With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.
McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?
Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?
I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article argues there is not and cannot be such as a separation.
To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend.
What do you think?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: harrisj@darden.virginia.edu, freemane@darden.virginia.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 6:17:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Another separation thesis?
Dear Professors Harris and Freeman,
I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Impossibility of the Separation Thesis: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.
In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.
It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.
I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx
Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:
Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most
commonpricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is
oftenused in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party
Payorswill reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that
someconsumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants,
McKessonCorporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank
("FDB"), apublisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by
FDB todetermine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many
drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any
wrongdoing.
With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.
McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?
Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?
I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article argues there is not and cannot be such as a separation.
To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend.
What do you think?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Friday, May 15, 2009
McKesson; Institute for Legal Reform
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
CC: RLundberg@USChamber.com, RConrad@USChamber.com, presidingdirector@mckesson.com, nonmanagementdirectors@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/15/2009 7:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I believe that the Institute for Legal Reform ought to have as part of its anti-plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal argumentation to the effect that plaintiffs' lawyers undermine business ethics.
Yesterday I sent the below email to the McKesson Corporation directors related to a class action lawsuit that is pending against McKesson. In the email, I urge the directors to reflect on whether their settlement unnecessarily abets the plaintiffs' lawyers in their undermining of business ethics.
If you have any thoughts about this, I would be interested in hearing from you.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
From: RDShatt
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
To McKesson Corporation Directors:
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.
I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley CircleBirmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
CC: RLundberg@USChamber.com, RConrad@USChamber.com, presidingdirector@mckesson.com, nonmanagementdirectors@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/15/2009 7:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I believe that the Institute for Legal Reform ought to have as part of its anti-plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal argumentation to the effect that plaintiffs' lawyers undermine business ethics.
Yesterday I sent the below email to the McKesson Corporation directors related to a class action lawsuit that is pending against McKesson. In the email, I urge the directors to reflect on whether their settlement unnecessarily abets the plaintiffs' lawyers in their undermining of business ethics.
If you have any thoughts about this, I would be interested in hearing from you.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
From: RDShatt
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
To McKesson Corporation Directors:
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.
I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley CircleBirmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Email to McKesson directors
From: RDShatt
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
To McKesson Corporation Directors:
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.
I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?
To McKesson Corporation Directors:
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.
I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Association of Corporate Counsel; McKesson
From: RDShatt
To: krebs@acc.com
CC: robert.roach@nyu.edu, eslavitt@avxus.com
Sent: 5/12/2009 12:05:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee
Dear Mr. Krebs,
Last May I corresponded with Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt of the Compliance & Ethics Committee. You may find some of the correspondence at this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/G2.%20Assoc.%20of%20Corporate%20Counsel. The current status of Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt in the Compliance & Ethics Committee appears unclear to me from the ACC website.
A class action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation prompted me to send this email yesterday to the McKesson General Counsel: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-general-counsel.html
I continue to be interested in engaging with the leadership of the ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee about this subject.
Would you please forward this email to the leadership of the Compliance & Ethics Committee and also to ACC director N. Cornell Boggs III (who is identified as Chief Responsibility & Ethics Officer at Miller Coors)?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: krebs@acc.com
CC: robert.roach@nyu.edu, eslavitt@avxus.com
Sent: 5/12/2009 12:05:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee
Dear Mr. Krebs,
Last May I corresponded with Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt of the Compliance & Ethics Committee. You may find some of the correspondence at this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/G2.%20Assoc.%20of%20Corporate%20Counsel. The current status of Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt in the Compliance & Ethics Committee appears unclear to me from the ACC website.
A class action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation prompted me to send this email yesterday to the McKesson General Counsel: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-general-counsel.html
I continue to be interested in engaging with the leadership of the ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee about this subject.
Would you please forward this email to the leadership of the Compliance & Ethics Committee and also to ACC director N. Cornell Boggs III (who is identified as Chief Responsibility & Ethics Officer at Miller Coors)?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Monday, May 11, 2009
Email to McKesson General Counsel
From: RDShatt
To: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/11/2009 8:45:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Dear Ms. Seeger,
I am quite sure you will not reply to me, but what the heck.
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. To my knowledge I am not a member of the plaintiff class in this class action against McKesson that McKesson has settled : McKessonAWPSettlement.
I am, however, going to attempt to be as vociferous as I can in objecting as a member of the public, as you may infer from this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckesson-drug-pricing-settlement.html
I think what most agitates me about the McKesson class action is how illustrative it is of the validity of the argumentation that I set forth in this article of mine: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I'd love to get in a discussion with you or the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer about the matter, but I suspect you will not accommodate me.
But it doesn't hurt to ask.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/11/2009 8:45:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Dear Ms. Seeger,
I am quite sure you will not reply to me, but what the heck.
I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. To my knowledge I am not a member of the plaintiff class in this class action against McKesson that McKesson has settled : McKessonAWPSettlement.
I am, however, going to attempt to be as vociferous as I can in objecting as a member of the public, as you may infer from this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckesson-drug-pricing-settlement.html
I think what most agitates me about the McKesson class action is how illustrative it is of the validity of the argumentation that I set forth in this article of mine: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I'd love to get in a discussion with you or the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer about the matter, but I suspect you will not accommodate me.
But it doesn't hurt to ask.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Sunday, May 10, 2009
McKesson drug pricing settlement
There has been a settlement in a drug pricing class action against McKesson Corporation and other defendants that has been pending in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts. (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm)
The notice describes the tenor of the class action as follows:
Objections must be filed with the Court by June 8, 2009.
I don't believe I am a member of the plaintiff class. This type of class action litigation that goes on significantly affects the public as a whole, and I propose to attact it as a member of the public.
The notice describes the tenor of the class action as follows:
Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most commonUnder the Settlement Agreement, it appears that McKesson will pay into the Settlement Fund $350,000,000 and McKesson will not object to attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers to the extent they do not exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund.
pricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is often
used in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party Payors
will reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that some
consumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants, McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank ("FDB"), a
publisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by FDB to
determine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any wrongdoing.
Objections must be filed with the Court by June 8, 2009.
I don't believe I am a member of the plaintiff class. This type of class action litigation that goes on significantly affects the public as a whole, and I propose to attact it as a member of the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)